W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: ISSUE-65 (excess vocab): REPORTED: excessive duplication of vocabulary

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:22:08 +0000
Message-Id: <B05C0C03-8971-4850-A9DA-F20B0F601F3D@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: ivan@w3.org, boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov

I agree that the kind of example put forward by Jeremy may be  
considered "bad modelling" -- it is surely not intended that a string  
is the creator of anything. What probably is intended is that the  
creator is some object (so dc:creator would be an object property),  
and that object may have a name (typically a string accessed via a  
datatype property).

I don't mean to imply that no "good" example exists, or that it is  
reasonable to ignore requirements deriving from what we believe to be  
misuse of the language ;-)


On 27 Nov 2007, at 15:28, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:

> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Well... I did meet one example. DCMI (the organization behind the  
>> Dublin
>> Core metadata) is having problems exactly on that. They have an  
>> abstract
>> model document[1] where they speak about 'value surrogate' that can
>> either be a literal or non-literal. When mapping this abstract  
>> model to
>> RDF[2] they hit this problem (eg, is the value of a dcterm:subject
>> property a literal or not).
> I personally think that this example illustrates plain bad modelling
> practice. Can you point to some discussion of the motivations for this
> choice which might modify my view?
> -Evan
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 16:22:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC